Gottheimer “Grimaces” at Allied Progress Ad Criticizing His Pro-Trump, Anti-Consumer Votes on Behalf of Wall Street Donors
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-Wall Street) is apparently still miffed by an ad campaign that consumer advocacy group Allied Progress launched last month calling out the Congressman for backing Trump more than half the time on key issues, voting to gut the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and deregulate Wall Street, and working to undermine the new, pro-accountability Democratic majority before it had even been sworn in. Gottheimer — who’s alarmingly taken over $1.5 million in campaign cash from the financial services industry and at least $2.8 million from industries regulated by CFPB despite serving in Congress for little more than two years – reportedly “grimaced” as he showed a New Jersey Record columnist a copy of Allied Progress’ full-page “Trumpheimer” ad.
“Congressman Gottheimer may be annoyed by the criticism that he too often sides with Trump over consumers on behalf of his Wall Street mega-donors, but we have good news for him – he can stop doing it today if he wanted,” said Jeremy Funk, spokesman for Allied Progress. “But the fact remains, Gottheimer continues to vote in line with President Trump more than half the time on key issues, especially when it comes to Trump-endorsed bills that make it easier for big banks and predatory lenders to get away with fleecing consumers.”
Funk added: “A prime example: Gottheimer sided with Trump and voted for the most consequential banking industry bill of the last Congress that severely weakened anti-discrimination standards for potential home buyers. If Gottheimer doesn’t want to be held to account when he rubberstamps Trump’s Wall Street agenda at the expense of consumers, he should try quitting cold turkey. There wouldn’t even be any withdrawal symptoms.”
WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW:
Josh Gottheimer Voted With President Trump More Than Democrats
Since Coming To Congress, Rep. Gottheimer Voted With President Trump More Than Half The Time.
“Since his 2017 swearing in, Gottheimer, the Problem Solvers Caucus chair, has voted with Trump more than half the time, according to FiveThirtyEight.”[Ryan Grim, “WHO’S THE MYSTERY MAN BEHIND THE LATEST PELOSI PUTSCH? IT’S MARK PENN,” The Intercept, 11/27/18]
- According to FiveThirtyEight, Josh Gottheimer has voted with Trump 55.3% of the time as of December 12, 2018. [“Tracking Congress In The Age Of Trump,” FiveThirtyEight, accessed 12/13/18]
Josh Gottheimer Voted For Mike Crapo’s Banking “Reform” Bill That Weakened Oversight And Anti-Discrimination Standards, Signed Into Law By President Trump.
In 2018, Josh Gottheimer Supported S. 2155, Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID)’s Banking “Reform” Bill That Raised The Threshold For A Bank To Be Considered Systematically Important And Weakened Anti-Discrimination Standards In Housing.
In May 2018, Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) Voted For S.2155, Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID)’S “Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, And Consumer Protection Act,” In Congress. [Roll Call 216, US House of Representatives, 114thCongress, 05/22/18]
- The Bill Raised The Threshold For A Bank To Be Considered Systematically Important From $50 Billion To $250 Billion In Assets. “The bill’s most controversial provision would increase the threshold from $50 billion to $250 billion for a bank to be considered systemically important. These so-called ‘too big to fail’ banks must undergo mandatory Fed ‘stress tests’ every year, complete a ‘living will’ directing how they could be wound down safely if they failed, and face other stricter safety rules. Just about everyone seems to agree that $50 billion was too low a threshold, inundating banks that don’t really pose systemic risks and don’t really need living wills with heavy compliance costs and headaches. But many experts believe $250 billion is too high.” [Michael Grunwald, “Behind The Dodd-Frank Freakout,” Politico, 11/08/18]
- The Bill Also Weakened “Anti-Discrimination Standards In Housing By Raising The Number Of Loans A Bank Can Make Before It’s Required To Report On The Issue.” Former Congressman Barney Frank “criticized a provision in the bill that he said weakens anti-discrimination standards in housing by raising the number of loans a bank can make before it’s required to report on the issue. Another provision that he singled out allows foreign megabanks, such as Deutsche Bank and HSBC, to put their American assets into a separate holding company to avoid US regulatory scrutiny.” [Emily Stewart, “The bank deregulation bill the Senate just passed, explained,” Vox, 03/14/18]
- 2155 Dismantled Many Consumer Protections And Laws To Keep Wall Street In Check. “The bill, S. 2155, would considerably weaken the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the law President Barack Obama signed in 2010, which was designed to tame Wall Street, protect consumers and make our financial system less fragile.” [Jennifer Taub, “Mitch McConnell’s big gift to the banks,”CNN, 03/05/18]
- 2155 Was Signed Into Law By President Trump On May 24, 2018. [S.2155 – Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, Congress.gov, accessed 01/18/18]
Josh Gottheimer Voted To Empower Wall Street Over Consumers.
Josh Gottheimer Was 1 Of Only 9 Democrats To Vote For A Bill That Would “Paralyze The SEC” And “Empower Wall Street Lawyers To Overturn Its Decisions.”
In 2017, Josh Gottheimer Voted For A Bill That Put “Put Limitations On Regulations Issued By The Securities And Exchange Commission.” In 2017, “Rep. Josh Gottheimer was one of just nine Democrats […] to vote for a bill similar to one sponsored last year by the Republican he beat […] to win his seat, Scott Garrett. The SEC Regulatory Accountability Act would put limitations on regulations issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission.” [Herb Jackson, “Gottheimer votes for bill Garrett sponsored in last Congress,” NorthJersey.com, 01/12/17]
- Josh Gottheimer Was One Of Only Nine Democrats To Vote For H.R. 78, The SEC Regulatory Accountability Act On January 12, 2017.[House Vote 51, H.R. 78, 01/12/17]
- R. 78 Sought To Impose “Increase The Cost-Benefit Analysis Requirements For SEC Regulations” And “Make It More Difficult For The SEC To Promulgate A Regulation.” “Written by Rep. Ann Wagner, R-MO, the measure would increase the cost-benefit analysis requirements for SEC regulations. Such a step would make it more difficult for the SEC to promulgate a regulation, such as one that would raise investment advice standards for retail accounts.” [Mark Schoeff Jr., “House bills would put brakes on SEC, other regulators,”InvestmentNews, 01/09/17]
- Consumer Advocates Argued H.R. 78 Was An Effort To “Paralyze The SEC And To Empower Wall Street Lawyers To Overturn Its Decisions.” Americans for Financial Reform said of the bill, “This legislation is transparently an effort to paralyze the SEC and to empower Wall Street lawyers to overturn its decisions, not to improve its analysis or decision making.” [Letter to Congress, Americans for Financial Reform, 01/12/17]
Josh Gottheimer Was 1 Of Only 13 Democrats To Vote For A Bill To Roll Back Dodd-Frank’s Stress Tests And Benefit The Country’s Biggest Banks.
Josh Gottheimer Was One Of Only Thirteen Democrats To Vote For A Bill To Soften Dodd-Frank’s Stress Tests To Ensure The Soundness Of Country’s Biggest Banks. Josh Gottheimer was one of only thirteen Democrats to vote for H.R. 4293, the Stress Test Improvement Act on April 11, 2018. [House Vote 137, H.R. 4293, 04/11/18]
- Josh Gottheimer Was One Of Only Five Financial Services Committee Democrats Who Voted To Advance H.R. 4293 To The Full House. Committee Democrats Voted 5-21.[ Rept. 115-593, U.S. House of Representatives, 03/13/18]
- Ranking Member Maxine Waters Argued That H.R. 4293 Would Roll Back Dodd-Frank’s Stress Tests, “One Of The Most Important Policy Developments Following The Largest Financial Crisis Since The Great Depression.” House Financial Services Ranking Member Maxine Waters and committee Democrats argued, “One of the most important policy developments following the largest financial crisis since the Great Depression was the enactment of stress testing for our nation’s largest banks. H.R. 4293 would make several harmful changes to the current bank stress test regime, specifically the stress tests required by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act […]” [ Rept. 115-593, U.S. House of Representatives, 03/13/18]
- R. 4293 Would Hinder Regulators From Holding Banks’ Stress Tests To An Adequate Standard. H.R. 4293 “makes it harder for regulators to object to a deficient capital plan submitted by a megabank, and reduces the frequency of company-run stress tests required for the nation’s largest bank holding companies.” [H. Rept. 115-593, U.S. House of Representatives, 03/13/18]
- R. 4293 Would Primarily Benefit “The Largest And Most Complex Banks In The Country.” “This bill would significantly weaken stress testing, a crucial element of bank supervision, by preventing regulators from assessing the capacity of big banks to perform adequate data analysis or risk management as part of the stress testing process. Since the Federal Reserve only assesses these issues for the largest and most complex banks in the country, H.R. 4293 would benefit only these banks.” [Letter from Americans for Financial Reform to Congress, 04/10/18]
Since Coming to Congress, Josh Gottheimer Has Repeatedly Voted To Gut Consumer Protections And Weaken The CFPB
Josh Gottheimer Voted For A Bill To Strip The CFPB And Other Banking Regulators Of Their Authority To Protect Consumers
Josh Gottheimer Voted For A Bill That Would Have Allowed Any Bank, Plus Any Non-Bank Overseen By The CFPB, To Appeal Regulatory Decisions They Don’t Like Through A New Office That Wouldn’t Have To Pay Any Deference To Existing Agencies. Josh Gottheimer voted for H.R. 4545, the Financial Institutions Examination Fairness and Reform Act on March 15, 2018. [House Vote 112, H.R. 4545, 03/15/18]
- Josh Gottheimer Voted To Advance H.R. 4545 From The House Financial Services Committee To The Full House. Committee Democrats Voted 16-10.[ Rept. 115-589, U.S. House of Representatives, 03/06/18]
- R. 4545 Would Allow Any Bank, Plus Any Non-Bank Under CFPB Jurisdiction, To Appeal Regulatory Decisions They Don’t Like. “Although proponents of this bill contend that it will provide regulatory relief to community banks and small lenders, the bill is not tailored for that goal. Rather, H.R. 4545 would allow any bank, as well as any nonbank under the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (‘Consumer Bureau’) supervisory authority, to appeal negative supervisory determinations made in the examination process.” [H. Rept. 115-589, U.S. House of Representatives, 03/06/18]
- R. 4545 Would Allow Any Bank To Appeal And Delay A Wide Range Of Supervisory Actions Meant To Protect Consumers. “H.R. 4545 would enable any bank, regardless of size, to appeal and postpone material supervisory determinations by the bank’s regulator, which include adverse determinations such as a downgrade of a bank’s rating for capital, asset quality, management, earnings, liquidity, and sensitivity to market risks (CAMELS); significant deficiencies in the institution’s Bank Secrecy Act/Anti- Money Laundering (BSA/AML) program; findings related to violations of various regulations; or a downgrade of a bank’s Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) rating.” [H. Rept. 115-589, U.S. House of Representatives, 03/06/18]
- The Appeals Allowed Under H.R. 4545 Would Have Gone Through A Newly-Formed Appeals Office That Would Not Be Required To Respect The Agency’s Findings. “H.R. 4545 would grant banks the right to appeal any supervisory determination made by any bank regulatory agency, including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), to a new ‘Office of Independent Examination Review’ that is outside of any regulatory agency. Upon appeal by a supervised bank, this new office would be required to undertake a de novo review of the agency’s supervisory decision. No deference to the initial examination findings or the supervisory agency’s judgment would be required in this review.” [Letter from Americans for Financial Reform to the U.S. House of Representatives, 03/12/18]
Josh Gottheimer Was 1 Of Only 11 Democrats Who Voted For A Trump-Backed Bill To Create An “Unelected Commission” That Could Undo Or Block Important Consumer Protections
Josh Gottheimer Was One Of Only 11 Democrats To Vote For A Trump-Backed Bill To Create An “Unelected Commission” To Redundantly Review Existing Regulations And Override Agencies’ Ability To Issue Regulations And Consumer Protections. Josh Gottheimer was one of only 11 Democrats to vote for H.R. 998, the Searching for and Cutting Regulations that are Unnecessarily Burdensome Act (SCRUB) Act on March 1, 2017. [House Vote 114, H.R. 998, 03/01/18]
- Every Democratic Member Of The House Committee On Oversight And Government Reform Voted Against Reporting H.R. 998 To The Full House.[ 115-14 Part 1, U.S. House of Representatives, 02/21/17]
- Oversight Committee Democrats Argued That H.R. 998 “Would Prioritize Corporate Profits Over The Health And Safety Of The American Public.” The Minority Report of the House Oversight Democrats opposed the bill, “Committee Democrats strongly oppose H.R. 998. We reject the view that this bill would be a panacea for eliminating regulations that have unnecessary regulatory costs on our economy. Through the creation of an unelected Commission, this bill would duplicate work agencies are already doing to review and repeal regulations— at a cost to taxpayers of $30 million—and it would prioritize corporate profits over the health and safety of the American public.” [ 115-14 Part 1, U.S. House of Representatives, 02/21/17]
- R. 998 Would Have “Force[d] Agencies To Prioritize Between Existing Protections And Responding To New Threats […]” “The bill establishes a regulatory ‘cut-go’’ process that would force agencies to prioritize between existing protections and responding to new threats to health and safety.” [Rept. 115-14 Part 1, U.S. House of Representatives, 02/21/17]
- R. 998 Would Have Overridden The Expertise Of The Agencies With An “Unelected Commission.” “The bill would take regulatory review out of the hands of agency subject-matter experts and place it in an unelected Commission. The Commission could devise any methodology for its review of rules, and no rules would be exempt.” [Rept. 115-14 Part 1, U.S. House of Representatives, 02/21/17]
- Consumer Advocates Argued H.R. 998 Would Have Made It “Significantly More Difficult” For Regulations To Be Issued. “H.R. 998 would establish a new bureaucracy empowered to dismantle long-established science-based public health and safety standards and would make it significantly more difficult for Congress and federal agencies to implement essential future protections.” [“Oppose H.R. 998 Searching for and Cutting Regulations that are Unnecessarily Burdensome Act of 2017 (SCRUB Act),” Center for Responsible Lending, 02/27/17]
- The Trump Administration Supported H.R. 998. “The SCRUB Act, H.R. 998, addresses the numerous outdated, duplicative, and otherwise unnecessary regulations that have accumulated throughout government. […] The Administration supports the SCRUB Act.” [Statement of Administration Policy, H.R. 998, 02/28/17]
# # #